Acts 2:38 is hidden from Christendom like Jesus is hidden from the blinded Jews

[Truther]

This is amazing but true.

The Jews per Romans 11 etc have been voluntarily blinded and Christians have also been voluntarily blinded from obeying Acts 2:38.

It is as if each group has put their own eyes out with a bias instrument.

Funny thing is, it does not physically hurt either of the groups, but only causes them to walk in darkness and ignorance.

I always wondered with amazement of how the 1st century Jews could block out Jesus miracles for the "greater good of Judaism".

I find it even more amazing how a professing Christian can do away with Acts 2:38 for the "greater good" of modern Christendom.

It started with disobeying Acts 2:38, then spirals down into moral decay, multiversionism, closet translators and splintering factions of Christendom.

Wow!

 

[Randy Kluth]

This is amazing but true.

The Jews per Romans 11 etc have been voluntarily blinded and Christians have also been voluntarily blinded from obeying Acts 2:38.

It is as if each group has put their own eyes out with a bias instrument.

Funny thing is, it does not physically hurt either of the groups, but only causes them to walk in darkness and ignorance.

I always wondered with amazement of how the 1st century Jews could block out Jesus miracles for the "greater good of Judaism".

I find it even more amazing how a professing Christian can do away with Acts 2:38 for the "greater good" of modern Christendom.

It started with disobeying Acts 2:38, then spirals down into moral decay, multiversionism, closet translators and splintering factions of Christendom.

Wow!

What on earth are you talking about? Professing Christians do *not* do away with Acts 2.38! You must be a member of a Christian cult?

 

[Truther]

What on earth are you talking about? Professing Christians do *not* do away with Acts 2.38! You must be a member of a Christian cult?

Randy, nearly all Christians per capita have disobeyed and dismissed Acts 2:38, from the RCC, Protestantism to Mormonism.

They all dismiss Acts 2:38 as in one mind and one accord.

Only few obey it.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Randy, nearly all Christians per capita have disobeyed and dismissed Acts 2:38, from the RCC, Protestantism to Mormonism.

They all dismiss Acts 2:38 as in one mind and one accord.

Only few obey it.

Please give me an example of this, where you believe this is happening? Thank you.

 

[Truther]

Please give me an example of this, where you believe this is happening? Thank you.

Sure.

The RCC skips Acts 2:38 for the titles.

The mainline denominations do the same.

The JW's also baptize in the titles.

The Mormons baptize in the titles.

The Baptists...

The independents....

They all fight Acts 2:38.

Even the seminary is risen up as a supreme goal to attempt to debunk Jesus name baptism.

 

[Naomanos]

Sure.

The RCC skips Acts 2:38 for the titles.

The mainline denominations do the same.

The JW's also baptize in the titles.

The Mormons baptize in the titles.

The Baptists...

The independents....

They all fight Acts 2:38.

Even the seminary is risen up as a supreme goal to attempt to debunk Jesus name baptism.

In the titles?

 

[Truther]

In the titles?

Yes, the titles Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Those are not the name of the son per Matt 28:19.

 

[Naomanos]

Yes, the titles Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Those are not the name of the son per Matt 28:19.

Oh, so you're not a trinitarian?

 

[Truther]

Oh, so you're not a trinitarian?

No, I am not.

 

[Naomanos]

No, I am not.

Well, that makes sense then.

I happen to be someone that believes in the Trinity.

 

[Truther]

Well, that makes sense then.

I happen to be someone that believes in the Trinity.

That has no bearing on the Godhead beliefs.

Jw's are not trinitariams, but also skip Acts 2:38.

So do unitarians etc.

 

[Truther]

edit

 

[Naomanos]

That has no bearing on the Godhead beliefs.

Jw's are not trinitariams, but also skip Acts 2:38.

So do unitarians etc.

Okay. I am not here to debate you. I was just curious what "in the titles" meant and then whether or not you are a trinitarian.

 

[Truther]

Okay. I am not here to debate you. I was just curious what "in the titles meant" and then whether or not you are a trinitarian.

Well, I understand.

There are about 3 billion men with the titles "father" and "son" on our planet.

Just saying "father" or "son" is not the qualifier during baptism to remit sins.

"Jesus" must be verbalized to qualify remission of sins.

 

[Naomanos]

Well, I understand.

There are about 3 billion men with the titles "father" and "son" on our planet.

Just saying "father" or "son" is not the qualifier during baptism to remit sins.

"Jesus" must be verbalized to qualify remission of sins.

If you say so? Not looking to debate and to be honest, I don't agree with your stance.

 

[Truther]

If you say so? Not looking to debate and to be honest, I don't agree with your stance.

That is what the forum is all about.

Share thoughts and disagree civilly.

 

[Truther]

Some say the name of the son per Matt 28:19 is "son".

I'm sure Jesus and Mary would disagree.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Sure.

The RCC skips Acts 2:38 for the titles.

The mainline denominations do the same.

The JW's also baptize in the titles.

The Mormons baptize in the titles.

The Baptists...

The independents....

They all fight Acts 2:38.

Even the seminary is risen up as a supreme goal to attempt to debunk Jesus name baptism.

I don't know what you mean "skips Acts 2:38 for the titles?" Please be more clear in your claim, and give me an example? Are you Jesus Only? Is this some kind of Trinitarian concern you have? Of is this a concern about how to properly get Baptized in water? Or perhaps even a problem with the formula for Salvation?

 

[Truther]

I don't know what you mean "skips Acts 2:38 for the titles?" Please be more clear in your claim, and give me an example? Are you Jesus Only? Is this some kind of Trinitarian concern you have? Of is this a concern about how to properly get Baptized in water? Or perhaps even a problem with the formula for Salvation?

The apostles always and only baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins.

Again, this has nothing to do with the Godhead, because many that don't think Jesus is God but only the messiah etc, use the titles and refuse the actual name of Jesus.

I am not oneness.

I am not trinitarian.

I am not unitarian etc.

The "formula" to solve the puzzle of whom the name of the son is per Matt 28:19, is found in Acts 2:38.

This which I just said has divided the first century church from the RCC and her constituents.

She(RCC) started this whole mess and everyone that adheres to it are her daughters..

 

[Naomanos]

That is what the forum is all about.

Share thoughts and disagree civilly.

While I know that this is what this is for. Still not looking to debate. I am firm in my beliefs.